The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Applications to Research on Social Work Practice
Abstract
Federal policy regarding the protection of human subjects in research has led to the creation of institutional review boards (IRBs) at every institution that receives federal funds for research. The function of the IRB is to review research that involves human subjects to ensure that this research is completed in an ethical manner. Social work research undertaken by researchers at federally funded institutions using human subjects and aiming to build knowledge that is generalizable is subject to IRB review, as is any research that is not specifically exempted from IRB oversight by the law. Social work practitioners and researchers who use research designs to evaluate practice effectiveness should comply with the ethical standards of the profession and may be subject to the standards specified in federal policy The relationships among social work research, the IRB, and the evaluation of social work practice are examined in light of the federal policy for protecting human subjects. Guidelines are given as to the types of research and evaluation that fall under the purview of the IRB.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Research Methods For Social Work
Kumar, U. (2011) · Cited by 927
Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers
(2014) · Encyclopedia of Human Services and Diversity · doi:10.4135/9781483346663.n105 · Cited by 819
Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional
Roberts, A. R. (1983) · Journal of Education for Social Work · doi:10.1080/00220612.1983.10778623 · Cited by 340
Social Work Research and Evaluation
Borowski, A. (1983) · Social Work · doi:10.1093/sw/28.2.165-b · Cited by 278
Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants.
(1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0038067 · Cited by 176
The tension between research and practice: Assumptions of the experimental paradigm
Saleebey, D. (1979) · Clinical Social Work Journal · doi:10.1007/bf00761887 · Cited by 34
Clinical Social Work: Research and Practice
Russell, M. (1990) · Cited by 20
Cited by
Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches
Erlich, Y., Shor, T., Pe’er, I., & Carmi, S. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aau4832 · Cited by 367
Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis
Jones, C. W., Handler, L., Crowell, K. E., Keil, L. G., Weaver, M. A., & Platts-Mills, T. F. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f6104 · Cited by 350
The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines
Bracken-Roche, D., Bell, E., Macdonald, M. E., & Racine, E. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6 · Cited by 283
Children's Competence for Assent and Consent: A Review of Empirical Findings
Miller, V. A., Drotar, D., & Kodish, E. (2004) · Ethics & Behavior · doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1403_3 · Cited by 186
Lessons from HeLa Cells: The Ethics and Policy of Biospecimens
Beskow, L. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-083115-022536 · Cited by 146
“In September 2015, the federal government published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to overhaul the Common Rule (102).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Grigsby, R. K., & Roof, H. L.
- Venue
- Research on Social Work Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 448-461
- ISSN
- 1049-7315 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7581
- OpenAlex
- W2161336684
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Applications to Research on Social Work Practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/104973159300300406
- The paper
- Grigsby, R. K., & Roof, H. L. (1993). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects: Applications to Research on Social Work Practice. Research on Social Work Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159300300406
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
